GOP introduces national right-to-work legislation

[Anathema]

Ever think that maybe they never wanted it in the first place?

Then don't apply for a Union job. Very simple.

 

[Anathema]

They do it because they know it pays off in the long run. Who is first in line for the ax when business drops off and the company can't afford to keep all the workers, the one who only does what he's absolutely required to do or the one who doesn't worry so much about the clock and does what ever is necessary to get the job done right and on time? Who is first in line for a promotion, the one who only does what he's absolutely required to do or the one who doesn't worry so much about the clock and does what ever is necessary to get the job done right and on time? Who is going to get the better recommendation for the next job?

In a Union environment those things make no difference. Seniority rules 99% of the time. The fact that you're willing to show Brothers/Sisters up is not going to make you friends or help you out.

Your attitude shows that you're not really happy with your chosen path, because you fight to prevent others from being happy with their's, and you know that them following their desires makes you following your's look bad.

Happiness isn't sk.ethibg I believe in. I'm content where I am. Hell, I'll be content here 30 yesrs from now when at least 2 of the guys Junior to me on this,roster will be Senior to me on it (because I won't bid the Senior Tech position). I just expect them to put their time in to get there.

 

[Anathema]

100% is the expectation. 125% is the exception. Some people like to be exceptional. It's none of your business why, just accept the fact that they are willing to work harder and be more valuable than you. If you don't want to, and only want to do exactly what's required, go for it and be happy, but stop trying to prevent others from being happy in what they do.

In a Union Exceptional is not the goal. Contractually Obligated is the rule.

If/when Right to Work comes to Massachusetts, we'll see how it works out. At least I won't end up wasting half a day (like today) defending the guy stupid enough to insult our boss in a meeting. Nope. That one I know would opt out.

 

[hadit]

They do it because they know it pays off in the long run. Who is first in line for the ax when business drops off and the company can't afford to keep all the workers, the one who only does what he's absolutely required to do or the one who doesn't worry so much about the clock and does what ever is necessary to get the job done right and on time? Who is first in line for a promotion, the one who only does what he's absolutely required to do or the one who doesn't worry so much about the clock and does what ever is necessary to get the job done right and on time? Who is going to get the better recommendation for the next job?

In a Union environment those things make no difference. Seniority rules 99% of the time. The fact that you're willing to show Brothers/Sisters up is not going to make you friends or help you out.

Your attitude shows that you're not really happy with your chosen path, because you fight to prevent others from being happy with their's, and you know that them following their desires makes you following your's look bad.

Happiness isn't sk.ethibg I believe in. I'm content where I am. Hell, I'll be content here 30 yesrs from now when at least 2 of the guys Junior to me on this,roster will be Senior to me on it (because I won't bid the Senior Tech position). I just expect them to put their time in to get there.

Exactly. In a union environment there is little incentive to excel, only to be average. IOW, cut the top performers down instead of lifting all performers up. Race to mediocrity.

 

[hadit]

100% is the expectation. 125% is the exception. Some people like to be exceptional. It's none of your business why, just accept the fact that they are willing to work harder and be more valuable than you. If you don't want to, and only want to do exactly what's required, go for it and be happy, but stop trying to prevent others from being happy in what they do.

In a Union Exceptional is not the goal. Contractually Obligated is the rule.

If/when Right to Work comes to Massachusetts, we'll see how it works out. At least I won't end up wasting half a day (like today) defending the guy stupid enough to insult our boss in a meeting. Nope. That one I know would opt out.

In a union, apparently the rule doesn't allow for exceptions. That's why top performers don't like unions, they bring down the top instead of elevating everyone.

 

[Anathema]

In a union, apparently the rule doesn't allow for exceptions. That's why top performers don't like unions, they bring down the top instead of elevating everyone.

What it does is keep brown-nosing fuckwads from getting ahead based on favoritism rather than on being able to do the job.

When we Unionized in 2009, an individual left the Engineering Department because he would no longer be able to get "credit" for doing 10-15 hours of unpaid OTHER every week. Seems he was being heralded for getting all his weekly assignments done and others in the department were being chastised for not being willing to do the same before the Unionization. Suddenly with only 40 hours a week to get work done, he couldn't do it either. Hmmmm.

 

[Anathema]

Exactly. In a union environment there is little incentive to excel, only to be average. IOW, cut the top performers down instead of lifting all performers up. Race to mediocrity.

No. It just forces employers,to pay more if they want more work done.

 

[EverCurious]

It's not favoritism to promote employees who have more enthusiasm for the job, that's just silly. Also not brown-nosing to do more to get a promotion - aka higher pay/position

 

[EverCurious]

Just thought of a good analogy:

Is it "brown nosing" when a student studies hard for a test? Is it "favoritism" to give said student an A on said test even though the [union worker] only studied enough to get a C?

 

[hadit]

In a union, apparently the rule doesn't allow for exceptions. That's why top performers don't like unions, they bring down the top instead of elevating everyone.

What it does is keep brown-nosing fuckwads from getting ahead based on favoritism rather than on being able to do the job.

When we Unionized in 2009, an individual left the Engineering Department because he would no longer be able to get "credit" for doing 10-15 hours of unpaid OTHER every week. Seems he was being heralded for getting all his weekly assignments done and others in the department were being chastised for not being willing to do the same before the Unionization. Suddenly with only 40 hours a week to get work done, he couldn't do it either. Hmmmm.

What this sounds like is a situation in which a department was faced with too much work to accomplish in 40 hours and one individual did what was necessary to get it done while the others did not and was being rewarded for doing so. He then chose to leave when faced with the certainty that the union was going to make sure that mediocrity was going to be the new standard. I'm sure he landed on his feet and is doing well somewhere else.

 

[hadit]

Exactly. In a union environment there is little incentive to excel, only to be average. IOW, cut the top performers down instead of lifting all performers up. Race to mediocrity.

No. It just forces employers,to pay more if they want more work done.

No, it takes away the opportunity for an enterprising employee to demonstrate his value to the company and be rewarded for it. Basically, it turns every employee into a mindless drone who works for the union, not the company.

 

[hadit]

Just thought of a good analogy:

Is it "brown nosing" when a student studies hard for a test? Is it "favoritism" to give said student an A on said test even though the [union worker] only studied enough to get a C?

Is it favoritism for the Lakers to hire only the top scoring college players and not those who warmed the bench?

I can understand how people would want to put in the minimum at their jobs. That's fine as long as they then are happy with the mediocre returns they get from their jobs and are not envious when someone does more and gets more.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Republicans are so confused. They actually want to repeal the ACA by saying people should be able to get together to negotiate from strength for their prices.

Then they also believe that workers shouldnt have the right to get together for wages and job protection

I don't see that at all. No one is denying workers the ability to negotiate as a group for wages, job protection, or benefits. What I see is a movement to allow workers who don't wish to join that group their right not to be coerced into paying union extortion in order to find and hold a job.

 

[IcebergSlim]

Yeah.....cause about the best thing we could do for the economy right now would be anything which might drive down wages....

Or a war..........a war would work, too.....

If unions are such a wonderful thing why do you have to be forced to join it and how come every state that enacts Right to Work legislation sees an immediate exodus of union members from their unions?

For the same reason that there are no poor people, only temporarily embarrassed millionaires...

Your first complaint relates to the "Free Rider" problem. Everyone loves the Bennies, but everyone thinks they are free. No one is forced to seek employment at a "union shop" (you may, as a consequence of a vote of your colleagues find yourself in one).

 

[IcebergSlim]

Only in your dreams, dear.

Right to work is simply a p!loy to pay less. Be honest and come clean. Anyone with half a brain cell can easily figure this out. Just be honest. But in america honesty takes a back door to the filthy dollar. Spawn of the devil dollar that is.

“Right-to-Work” States Still Have Lower Wages
So-called right-to-work (RTW) legislation goes one step further and entitles employees to the benefits of a union contract—including the right to have the union take up their grievance if their employer abuses them—without paying any of the cost.

• Wages in RTW states are 3.1 percent lower than those in non-RTW states, after controlling for a full complement of individual demographic and socioeconomic factors as well as state macroeconomic indicators. This translates into RTW being associated with $1,558 lower annual wages for a typical full-time, full-year worker.

• The relationship between RTW status and wages remains economically and statistically significant under alternative specifications of our econometric model.

would have been even better with sources...

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Absolutely necessary and beneficial to the economy. Especially good if it includes public service unions! Expect the unions to fight this tooth and nail.

"At least 80 percent of Americans are opposed to forcing employees to pay dues as a condition of their employment, and our bill would protect workers by eliminating the forced-dues clauses in federal statute. Right-to-work states, like South Carolina, have seen first-hand that job creation and economic growth comes from expanded freedoms. We need to expand common-sense reforms, like those in the National Right to Work Act to protect American workers and create jobs," Wilson told the Washington Examiner.

More w/links @ GOP introduces national right-to-work legislation

Good! Long overdue. If someone does not wish to become a union automaton and financial shill, they should not be forced to do so. I still remember my first union indoctrination after I retired from the military. Some sleazy, greased-back, over-dressed slime-bag stepped into the classroom and passed out a half-sheet form that required us to relinquish a portion of our earnings to the union, and to agree to contribute a monthly stipend thereafter. I asked the sleaze-ball what would happen if I declined to sign his form. He told me that I would no longer have a job. So, if I don't agree to pay the union an "initiation" and a monthly tribute, I will be denied a job?, I ask him. He tells me, "Yes". OK, so if I don't pay the union a portion of my earnings, I will be denied a job? "Yes." In my book, that constitutes extortion. The guy didn't seem to like me much...

If You're Not a Union Man, You're Not a Man at All

What you produce for the company minus the profit it takes out of that for itself is the first level of "take-home pay." So that profit is the same as paying union dues, but it won't protect you from having the company gouge even more out of what you produce. If you don't let the company take what it wants out of you, you will also be denied a job there. This is a class war, and scabs are deserters. You have no Right to Work for the other side.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Without the Unions, we would be living and working in the same conditions that existed prior to the First Great Republican Depression. And, given the orange clown's intentions, and those of the GOP, we may see that again, just before the Second Great Republican Depression.

Union's are a leftist scam , another corporate control scam they screw you while they skim your pay checks.

The Specious Spectrum

It's not Leftist. There are no unions under Communism. Second, negligent Liberal snobs never do their part and counter "Tax Freedom Day" with "Profit Freedom Day": the day an employee starts working for himself rather than for the company, which arbitrarily tells a non-union worker how much he produces for it he gets to keep.

Liberals are born-rich snobs who deplore working people. They infiltrated the Democratic Party when they don't even have a right to exist in a democracy.

 

[Harry Dresden]

....Conclusion: You are required by law to treat non-members the same as members when it comes to applying and enforcing the labor-management agreement. However, regarding issues that can be raised in a forum other than the negotiated grievance procedure you can restrict representation to members only . If you doubt what I say I urge you to check with a labor attorney.

Belief or non-belief is irrelevant. There is no circumstance where I would represent a non-paying member. I don't believe there are any other Stewards or Union Leaders in the Union who would either. I'd lose my job over it, thank you very much.

It's not just about you. If management fires an employee without just cause and you refuse to file a grievance on his behalf because he is not a union member, what do you think will happen? I will tell you. He will sue your union and your union will lose.

Look, I don't give a royal fuck what happens to you personally if you disobey the law. You're an adult and you are willing to face the consequences of your actions and I find that admirable. However, when your ego-driven personal agenda puts your own union at risk I have a problem.

At any rate, I did my best to inform you what the law says and I am done with you and this thread.

i was a member of the NALC in the PO and thats the way it was with them,you had to defend the non union guys or you will have a problem...........

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

I'm retired from Verizon, formerly known as C&P Telephone Co, & Bell Atlantic. I'm old enough to have worked through both name changes. I retired having been a union member of CWA for 39yrs.,11mos. VIrginia is right to work state. It's good to have a choice to join a union or not, but it did cause some hard feelings sometimes between the union and non union employees, especially after a strike.
They would get the exact same benefits we won without being out of work and losing pay, although there were some that stayed out too in support. The Union reps. had to represent them if they filed a grievance, the same as union members. Our layoffs or loss of jobs were done by seniority not if you were union or not. There were some folks that became members because they started feeling they should help pay for all the hard earned benefits they enjoyed like we had paid through the years. I see good and bad, and I'm glad I'm retired.

Can you please explain why the contract the union won didn't exclude non-union workers from getting what they didn't contribute to? Denial of benefits to scab traitors should be one of the demands of the strike.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Now you're just telling us your a Little Liar and a child

Neither. Just someone who doesn't give a funk about anyone else. Never have and never will.

so why are you steward then?....